UKRAINE SOUNDS THE ALARM

The Georgian-Ossetian and Georgian-Abkhaz conflicts have prompted many of Moscow's neighbours to be harshly critical of its actions and to express concern at the possibility of Russian military interference on the territory of other states.

Naval politics

The hot topics of the day are how Tbilisi's Western allies will respond to Russia and "who's next?" Leading Western media are packed with articles on the topic. Different opinions can be heard - supporters of a "tough and appropriate reaction" to the actions of the Russian military contrast with those who have succumbed to panic. However, the absolute majority of Western journalists, politicians and political scientists are united in the view that what is happening in Georgia could be just a prelude to Russian attempts to seize territory from other neighbouring states.

First on the list is Ukraine, whose president, Viktor Yushchenko, has demanded that the Russian navy's ships based in Sevastopol stop their involvement in the military actions against Georgia. "We cannot monitor the operations of the fleet of a foreign state," the Ukrainian president said. "Nevertheless, we can and must demand that the Russian side strictly observe Ukrainian law with respect to the rules governing the stationing of the Russian fleet on our territory. International law has similar provisions and prescribes a modus operandi for such situations. I have issued two decrees to control the movement of Russian troops and military hardware outside their bases and also their crossing of Ukrainian state borders. This is in full accord with the main agreement between Ukraine and Russia which regulates the situation while the Russian fleet is on our territory. We are still coming up against many unresolved issues on the basing of the Russian fleet in Ukraine, but I am convinced that we can reach compromise."

Asked when negotiations will begin with Russia on the withdrawal of its fleet when the lease runs out in 2017, Yushchenko said that he had asked Moscow several times to consider this. But every time Kiev met with a lack of understanding and a clear lack of desire to tackle the problem. "It is understandable that the withdrawal of such a large military contingent cannot be carried out quickly - this will take long political, economic and logistical preparation. It will be necessary to build and modernize military bases on Russian territory where the fleet will be relocated. International experience says that all this could take from seven to nine years. Therefore, we cannot fail to be concerned that Russia does not want even to begin negotiations. When the period of the agreement runs out, Russian troops and ships will have to leave Ukraine," Viktor Yushchenko said.

The only way

Crimea has long been a subject of political speculation and even provocation amongst some Russian political circles. Some Russian politicians cannot forgive Nikita Khruschev for transferring the peninsula to Ukraine and openly call for the Kremlin to review this decision of the former Soviet leadership. Before the events in Georgia, unpleasant incidents occurred between Moscow and Kiev which led to the Ukrainian leadership even declaring some Russian politicians persona non grata. Relations between the two states worsened even further after Ukraine and Georgia received full NATO support to join the North Atlantic alliance.

The current situation, especially in the light of Kiev's clear support of Tbilisi, has further fanned the flames. Viktor Yushchenko became a central hero in various types of TV report, publication and interview appearing in the Western media - a kind of main proponent of a tough reaction to Moscow's action. "The Russo-Georgian conflict will have a serious geopolitical impact not only on the European continent but on the whole world. The peace and security of Europe is today under threat, so a united Europe must give a firm and appropriate response to this challenge," the Ukrainian leader says.

Yushchenko has practically given up on mild formulations. For example, in an interview with British newspaper the Times he said clearly that the "recent events in Georgia have shown the fragility of peace and stability, not only in one country but in the region as a whole". The Ukrainian president said that for the first time since the cold war "a foreign army has invaded the territory of a sovereign state without any internationally recognized legal basis". "If we show an ambivalent position on this issue, then we are silently agreeing to put our country and citizens at risk. The main lesson that must be learnt from the Georgian events is that no single model of state security can guarantee the defence of national sovereignty. Only collective security can guarantee peace and stability and contain aggression. Ukraine must move towards membership of NATO. This is the only way for our country to defend its national security and sovereignty. When NATO expands its borders the zone of peace and stability will increase," Viktor Yushchenko said.

He also has no doubt that Kiev will receive an official invitation to join the North Atlantic alliance at the December meeting of NATO ministers. Meanwhile, the Ukrainian president warned against losing time and announced Ukraine's intention completely to review its defence priorities: "At the National Security Council we shall completely review the system for the funding of the armed forces in 2008 and the prospects for 2009. We need to increase the military budget so that questions do not arise of what might happen tomorrow. I would like to remind all the political forces in our country who talk loudly in favour of Ukraine's potential neutrality that neutrality can come at a high price."  

"'Hard' power"

Meanwhile, the view that it is at the least premature for Ukraine and Georgia to join NATO can be heard more and more in the West. For example, British newspaper the Sunday Times has published material that says openly "NATO opened its arms to Georgia and Ukraine without sound reason. On the contrary, it took a risk that it will have to come to the rescue of these countries." "And what has it gained by this? It has encouraged Georgia to take actions that heighten this risk and incur the wrath of Moscow," journalists conclude. They are echoed by New York Times contributors: "…We must abandon empty talk about Ukraine or Georgia joining NATO - at least until we want to invite Russia itself. NATO de facto remains as before a military pact from the cold war era which is trying to find a new identity and has not yet succeeded. Accepting these two former Soviet republics into the alliance would be perceived by Moscow (entirely justifiably) as anti-Russian provocation. And even if a new cold war did not begin as a result, serious cracks inside NATO itself would emerge." The Financial Times does not inspire optimism either, saying that "Russia has come up with an instrument - supporting oppressed ethnic minorities - that can be used in other regions. The next target could be Crimea, which belongs to pro-Western Ukraine, where the majority of the population are ethnic Russians and which is home to Russia's Black Sea Fleet."

Viktor Yushchenko wrote an article for the Washington Post saying that the conflict in Georgia had revealed problems that "extend well beyond our region". Recent events had clearly shown how dangerous it was for the international community to ignore "frozen conflicts". The problems of separatist regions in countries that have recently become independent are complex and very often they are turned into bargaining chips in geopolitical games. However, these "games" often result in the loss of human life, humanitarian disasters, economic ruin and the collapse of international security guarantees. "Ukraine has become a hostage in the war waged by Russia. This has prompted Ukrainian authorities and all of our country's people, including those living in Crimea, to ponder the dangers emanating from the fact that the Russian Black Sea Fleet is based on our territory," Yushchenko said.

"The ongoing conflict between Russia and Georgia affects my country's interests," Yushchenko continued. "Military operations have taken place close to our borders, and the Russian Black Sea Fleet was directly involved. The question of Ukraine's national security was acutely raised." The president concluded: "This weekend Ukraine celebrated the anniversary of its independence. This conflict has proved once again that the best means of ensuring the national security of Ukraine and other countries is to participate in the collective security system of free democratic nations, exemplified today by NATO. In accordance with national legislation and its foreign policy priorities, Ukraine will continue following the path of Euro-Atlantic integration. This is the path of democracy, freedom and independence."

What next? This is the main question today worrying all politicians and political scientists. How far will the Kremlin go in confrontation with the West - a confrontation, which to be honest, the West itself has forced on the Kremlin for many years by showing ever greater disregard for Russia's foreign policy interests. The confrontation began a long time ago and has lasted for much more than a year. But as this author warned on the pages of this magazine, the year 2008 is critical - it has set new contours for the development of international relations and almost completely "floored" everything that mankind has worked long and hard to achieve in world order and international law.

After the events in Iraq, Kosovo and now Georgia no-one should be surprised. Analysts and politicians have only to calculate the further steps of their allies and opponents in a world that has cynically cast aside all legal and ethical norms in interstate relations and is beginning a very painful return to multi-polarity.

Everything points towards a further increase in confrontation in international politics in the coming months and, sadly, years, in which the main parties to the conflict will be the West and Russia.

The question raised by influential publication Newsweek is appropriate: "Putin went back to 'hard' power, using gas to cow his neighbours from the Baltics via Belarus to Ukraine, and tanks to reconquer what he claims is rightfully his. Today, it is Georgia. What will it be tomorrow? The ex-Soviet republic of Azerbaijan, swimming on an ocean of oil? Kazakhstan, one of Europe's critical gas suppliers via pipelines running through Georgia, the last conduit not controlled by Russia? How about Kiev, now independent, but historically the very core of Russia?"

One alarming thread can be seen clearly in these questions that show the degree of confrontation - both conflicting sides see small countries as their pawns in this game. Which of them will the conflicting sides pick on next?